Oscar, you are proving Ann correct. She says hypocrite liberals can't give straight answers to simple questions. To wit: "...give three examples of Trump's poison pen on those who don't deserve it. Exact quotes, not fake news?" And instead, you posted more fake news.

BTW, are you related to ISIL? The Islamic State of Iraq and (Oscar) Levant. They argue like you, Jihad. Just keep spewing hate at the infidels.

The only thing that is fake is the president.

He may be fake, but your claims about him are false. I think we both know you can't come up with the three quotes and that is why your claim is false.

Then, apparently your thinking processes are faulty. I know no such thing, ... file it under .....

"asked and answered".

I'll repeat the answer, in case you missed it the first time:

I could, but you'll just say the diatribes were deserved.

That is what you will say, and because of that fact, there is no point in providing you with quotes, we'll
just have to disagree on whether or not they were deserved.

For some reason, such an elemental point outlling why optimum discourse with you on this is beyond your ability and
beyond your grasp, hence my correct conclusion that your thinking processes are faulty.

Then, apparently your thinking processes are faulty. I know no such thing, ... file it under .....
"asked and answered".

No. Your files are full of the false. Three quotes of Trump doing what you claim, please?
Or we can just file the non answer under - just another lying liberal sack of sh...t

None of this matters, for the presidency is a key stone cops affair, a veritable clown car morphing into a train wreck.

That's "Keystone."

I am pursuing your idea that it is OK for you to use a poison pen, but not for Ann and Trump to do the same. Your hypocrisy. Your double standard. Your veracity or lack thereof is the only issue that concerns me. You, as a proxy for liberalism.

I asked for your data, so you can prove your apparent hypocrisy is actually justice. I tried to shine the light of truth and all you have done is run from it like a cockroach, from one subject to another - and failed to notice that, unlike vermin, I don't take bait.

Basically, you are proving Ann right, when she says liberals can't give a straight answer to a simple question. And that may well be poison to fundamentalist liberal hypocrisy.

I notice that each time it takes you a little longer to concoct a bull crap evasion. I suspect that at some point you will figure out that bull crap isn't working, and you will go away.
Same question. Three quotes?

Then, apparently your thinking processes are faulty. I know no such thing, ... file it under .....
"asked and answered".

No. Your files are full of the false. Three quotes of Trump doing what you claim, please?
Or we can just file the non answer under - just another lying liberal sack of sh...t

None of this matters, for the presidency is a key stone cops affair, a veritable clown car morphing into a train wreck.

That's "Keystone."

I am pursuing your idea that it is OK for you to use a poison pen, but not for Ann and Trump to do the same. Your hypocrisy. Your double standard. Your veracity or lack thereof is the only issue that concerns me. You, as a proxy for liberalism.

I asked for your data, so you can prove your apparent hypocrisy is actually justice. I tried to shine the light of truth and all you have done is run from it like a cockroach, from one subject to another - and failed to notice that, unlike vermin, I don't take bait.

Basically, you are proving Ann right, when she says liberals can't give a straight answer to a simple question. And that may well be poison to fundamentalist liberal hypocrisy.

I notice that each time it takes you a little longer to concoct a bull crap evasion. I suspect that at some point you will figure out that bull crap isn't working, and you will go away.
Same question. Three quotes?

Even if I am that hypocrite you accuse me of, that doesn't change the all important fact:

That the presidency is a keystone cops affair, a veritable clown car morphing into a train wreck.

I've sat back an listened to 24/7 Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, and commenters on forums like this and elsewhere ad nauseum call liberals every sort of vile epithet for years, and one little peep out of lil' old me provokes a reaction from like you have no idea what I'm tallking about.

The very fact you have no idea what I"m talking about proves that YOU, not I, are the hypocrite.

Even if I am that hypocrite you accuse me of, that doesn't change the all important fact:

Your hypocrisy is the only important element, because it contaminates and undermines everything you might say about politics.

]The very fact you have no idea what I"m talking about proves that YOU, not I, are the hypocrite.

Fact? Your speculative opinion about what I supposedly don't know is not a fact. It is ad hominem fallacy. None of your opinions are fact, and neither wishing nor insisting can make them so. You are perpetuating the stereotype held to on the Coulter forum that liberals don't even know what the word "fact" means, and try to cover up for it by slander (the topic of a Coulter boo of the same name).

Come on, dude. This is your big chance to turn on that liberal intellectual light bulb. Right here at liberal ground zero. Rain and reign that brainpower down on us, big boy. Show us the acumen, the command of history, the mastery of facts, that awe-inspiring combination of scintillating logic and elegant simplicity of common sense - that the modern American liberal cognoscenti have done such a good job of hiding all these decades.
- Prove Coulter's best-selling treatises on liberalism as a mental disorder are wrong.
- Prove that liberals and facts are not enemies - by providing those three quotes.
- Prove that liberals can give a straight answer to a simple question - by providing the three quotes.
- Prove that there is an iota of intellect behind what your claim, and that you are not just a hate-spewing hypocrite.

And it all starts at the same square one that you have been running from like a cockroach from the light.
Three quotes, please.

Aliqui, where are you? You have been trying to tell me for years that liberals operate from some 'nice person' syndrome. Here we have a liberal. Is he writing anything that sounds like it comes from someone who wants to be a nice guy? All I can get from him are justifications for his own hypocrisy and hate rhetoric.

Even if I am that hypocrite you accuse me of, that doesn't change the all important fact:

Your hypocrisy is the only important element, because it contaminates and undermines everything you might say about politics.

]The very fact you have no idea what I"m talking about proves that YOU, not I, are the hypocrite.

Fact? Your speculative opinion about what I supposedly don't know is not a fact. It is ad hominem fallacy. None of your opinions are fact, and neither wishing nor insisting can make them so. You are perpetuating the stereotype held to on the Coulter forum that liberals don't even know what the word "fact" means, and try to cover up for it by slander (the topic of a Coulter boo of the same name).

Come on, dude. This is your big chance to turn on that liberal intellectual light bulb. Right here at liberal ground zero. Rain and reign that brainpower down on us, big boy. Show us the acumen, the command of history, the mastery of facts, that awe-inspiring combination of scintillating logic and elegant simplicity of common sense - that the modern American liberal cognoscenti have done such a good job of hiding all these decades.
- Prove Coulter's best-selling treatises on liberalism as a mental disorder are wrong.
- Prove that liberals and facts are not enemies - by providing those three quotes.
- Prove that liberals can give a straight answer to a simple question - by providing the three quotes.
- Prove that there is an iota of intellect behind what your claim, and that you are not just a hate-spewing hypocrite.

And it all starts at the same square one that you have been running from like a cockroach from the light.
Three quotes, please.

You apparently believe you are impressing your members of this forum, but you are truly not impressive.

There are a few conservatives who are thoughtful, articulate, whose opinions are intelligent, but they are not on fox news, they are on MSNBC, and that's Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace. Sometimes Joe Scarborough, but he gets annoying at times. It's people of this caliber, wherever and whomever they may be, I would be more than willing to spar with. However, you fall short of the mark,
and, as such, I have no interest in debating you.

You apparently believe you are impressing your members of this forum, but you are truly not impressive.

I don't believe there has ever been an accurate post in internet history that started with the word, "you apparently."

I am giving YOU a chance to make your own impression. Go ahead. Show them a thing or two, if you can. And I don't watch TV, so I don't follow in detail what script those sock puppets are reading from.

Three quotes please?
Time to show off the vast cosmos that is liberal intellect. Time to prove you are not just another drone in an unending line of liberal hypocrites who can't answer a simple question about substantiation, whose fullest demonstration of intelligence consists of spewing sophomoric hate speech (while hypocritically complaining about people who spew hate). Is there an intelligent liberal anywhere in creation?

I would consider addressing any of the numerous unrelated points you raised to create a diversion - but if you can't discuss one thing intelligently - your own claim - why should I assume you can discuss anything intelligently?

You apparently believe you are impressing your members of this forum, but you are truly not impressive.

I don't believe there has ever been an accurate post in internet history that started with the word, "you apparently."

I am giving YOU a chance to make your own impression. Go ahead. Show them a thing or two, if you can. And I don't watch TV, so I don't follow in detail what script those sock puppets are reading from.

Three quotes please?
Time to show off the vast cosmos that is liberal intellect. Time to prove you are not just another drone in an unending line of liberal hypocrites who can't answer a simple question about substantiation, whose fullest demonstration of intelligence consists of spewing sophomoric hate speech (while hypocritically complaining about people who spew hate). Is there an intelligent liberal anywhere in creation?

I would consider addressing any of the numerous unrelated points you raised to create a diversion - but if you can't discuss one thing intelligently - your own claim - why should I assume you can discuss anything intelligently?

That you are not, apparently, impressive, is not meant to be precise, hence the word "apparently", particularly when
observing someone's unimpressiveness requires only a general level truthfulness, a general assessment,
in the sense that it's an opinion, an observation.

The fact that you must declare the obvious as if you were making an acute point when it's anything but,
is proof of said unimpressiveness.

There is no point of intelligent discussions with unimpressive persons, dullards who are therefore likely to be lacking intelligence.

Oh, I could be wrong, but my gut feeling is that I'm right. So, bother someone else who might guzzle your silly bait.

I use bait for fishing real fish, not toying with fools who back Donald Trump.

There is no point of intelligent discussions with unimpressive persons, dullards who are therefore likely to be lacking intelligence.

As the lady, said give me your me your tired argument, In this case, it's more of a tired excuse for the inability to make an argument. We both know you have been evading, not because my intellect is too low, but because it is too high.

I use bait for fishing real fish, not toying with fools who back Donald Trump.

The one using bait is you. I don't back Trump.

If you are capable of "intelligent conversation," you should have figured that out already, when you said Trump is fake, and I said - maybe he is, but you are false. And calling the other person stupid is not intelligent conversation, it's how children argue.

Either you can support your claims (with intelligent conversation) or you can't. I'll not indulge a second claim, (ie take your Trump bait) as long as you refuse to support your first claim.

Three quotes please?

You said I am trying to impress my colleagues, but I am trying to get you to impress them. Bring out that big liberal intellect and show some of that "intelligent conversation" and teach em a lesson. You don't have to show them any childish name-calling. They are already very good at that.

You apparently believe you are impressing your members of this forum, but you are truly not impressive.

I don't believe there has ever been an accurate post in internet history that started with the word, "you apparently."

I am giving YOU a chance to make your own impression. Go ahead. Show them a thing or two, if you can. And I don't watch TV, so I don't follow in detail what script those sock puppets are reading from.

Three quotes please?
Time to show off the vast cosmos that is liberal intellect. Time to prove you are not just another drone in an unending line of liberal hypocrites who can't answer a simple question about substantiation, whose fullest demonstration of intelligence consists of spewing sophomoric hate speech (while hypocritically complaining about people who spew hate). Is there an intelligent liberal anywhere in creation?

I would consider addressing any of the numerous unrelated points you raised to create a diversion - but if you can't discuss one thing intelligently - your own claim - why should I assume you can discuss anything intelligently?

That you are not, apparently, impressive, is not meant to be precise, hence the word "apparently", particularly when
observing someone's unimpressiveness requires only a general level truthfulness, a general assessment,
in the sense that it's an opinion, an observation.

The fact that you must declare the obvious as if you were making an acute point when it's anything but,
is proof of said unimpressiveness.

There is no point of intelligent discussions with unimpressive persons, dullards who are therefore likely to be lacking intelligence.

Oh, I could be wrong, but my gut feeling is that I'm right. So, bother someone else who might guzzle your silly bait.

I use bait for fishing real fish, not toying with fools who back Donald Trump.

The [falsely claimed] moral superiority of the left always leads them to justify the means by the ends.

Sure. There is more than one way to explain liberal dementia syndrome. Coulter has put a big dent in the topic in her books. So have others. On this forum, since its inception, liberal dementia has been reduced to any number of theorems, metaphors and analogies.

Ends justifies the means? Yup.
-They "know" they are "emotionally right," thus virtuous, so if you disagree, you must be evil.
-They "know" they are "emotionally right." So, it's different when they do it, and not hypocrisy.
-Since they emotionally right, and can't be hypocrites, it's OK to hate, while criticizing others as "haters," to discriminate while complaining about discrimination.
-They know they can't sustain a rational debate, so they change the subject, or inundate with red herrings and outliers.
-They know they can't sustain a rational debate, so they criminalize the thought and vocabulary necessary to reveal the truth.
-And one of the oldest saws, one that has been demonstrated here, they can't give a straight answer to a simple question (if it is Socratic and designed to expose their fallacies).

I only say all of this, because now that there are two us, the case of liberal dementia that I have been interviewing is much less likely to return and say again how "right" he, and again without offering any rational explanation. It's hard enough form him to hide behind his Maginot Line with me, because I am not coming "from the right." With you on the field, he is going to get caught in a crossfire.

All he would have to do to save time and keystrokes is just say he is hater and he hates Trump with all his "soul" That is, tell the truth and acknowledge his subjectivity. If I responded at all, it would be to think him for his honesty. It would make him, by my estimate, about the third honest liberal I ever heard from.

You apparently believe you are impressing your members of this forum, but you are truly not impressive.

I don't believe there has ever been an accurate post in internet history that started with the word, "you apparently."

I am giving YOU a chance to make your own impression. Go ahead. Show them a thing or two, if you can. And I don't watch TV, so I don't follow in detail what script those sock puppets are reading from.

Three quotes please?
Time to show off the vast cosmos that is liberal intellect. Time to prove you are not just another drone in an unending line of liberal hypocrites who can't answer a simple question about substantiation, whose fullest demonstration of intelligence consists of spewing sophomoric hate speech (while hypocritically complaining about people who spew hate). Is there an intelligent liberal anywhere in creation?

I would consider addressing any of the numerous unrelated points you raised to create a diversion - but if you can't discuss one thing intelligently - your own claim - why should I assume you can discuss anything intelligently?

That you are not, apparently, impressive, is not meant to be precise, hence the word "apparently", particularly when
observing someone's unimpressiveness requires only a general level truthfulness, a general assessment,
in the sense that it's an opinion, an observation.

The fact that you must declare the obvious as if you were making an acute point when it's anything but,
is proof of said unimpressiveness.

There is no point of intelligent discussions with unimpressive persons, dullards who are therefore likely to be lacking intelligence.

Oh, I could be wrong, but my gut feeling is that I'm right. So, bother someone else who might guzzle your silly bait.

I use bait for fishing real fish, not toying with fools who back Donald Trump.

Remember when the so-called President said he was going to donate his salary? Well he just accepted his second paycheck.

Remember when he said Mexico was going to pay for the wall? He has asked Congress to appropriate the $25 billion of taxpayer money to cover costs.

Remember when he said he was going to divest from his businesses? Changed his mind.

Remember when he said he was going to release his tax returns? Changed his mind.

Remember when he said he wasn't going to go on vacation or play golf? 5 of the last 7 weekends he went on vacation and played golf, costing taxpayers $11.1 million.

Remember when he said he was going to use American steel to build these dangerous pipelines? Russian steel arrived last week for the Keystone Pipeline XL.

Remember when he said would defeat ISIS in 30 days? He still doesn't even have a plan.

Remember when he said he was going to appropriate money to HBCUs? He lied to get a photo-op.

Remember when he said he was going to drain the swamp of Washington insiders? His cabinet is filled with lobbyists, oil and Wall Street executives.

Remember when he said he wasn't going to cut social security and Medicare? The Republican bill does just this.

Remember when he said that nobody on his campaign has any communications with Russian govt? 7 of his people have now admitted they spoke and/or met with Russian officials, after they lied and got caught.

Remember when he said that the Obamacare replacement would cover more people at lower cost? The AHCA that the GOP and Trump are now pushing; they now admit will cover fewer people at a higher cost.

***************
Millions fewer covered and millions higher cost to poor, millions cheaper to the rich.
I'd like to thank Trump for waking up sleeping democrats who were conned into
voting for him last election. Trump is exposing what republicans are all about.
We shall see what happens in 2018.

You apparently believe you are impressing your members of this forum, but you are truly not impressive.

I don't believe there has ever been an accurate post in internet history that started with the word, "you apparently."

I am giving YOU a chance to make your own impression. Go ahead. Show them a thing or two, if you can. And I don't watch TV, so I don't follow in detail what script those sock puppets are reading from.

Three quotes please?
Time to show off the vast cosmos that is liberal intellect. Time to prove you are not just another drone in an unending line of liberal hypocrites who can't answer a simple question about substantiation, whose fullest demonstration of intelligence consists of spewing sophomoric hate speech (while hypocritically complaining about people who spew hate). Is there an intelligent liberal anywhere in creation?

I would consider addressing any of the numerous unrelated points you raised to create a diversion - but if you can't discuss one thing intelligently - your own claim - why should I assume you can discuss anything intelligently?

That you are not, apparently, impressive, is not meant to be precise, hence the word "apparently", particularly when
observing someone's unimpressiveness requires only a general level truthfulness, a general assessment,
in the sense that it's an opinion, an observation.

The fact that you must declare the obvious as if you were making an acute point when it's anything but,
is proof of said unimpressiveness.

There is no point of intelligent discussions with unimpressive persons, dullards who are therefore likely to be lacking intelligence.

Oh, I could be wrong, but my gut feeling is that I'm right. So, bother someone else who might guzzle your silly bait.

I use bait for fishing real fish, not toying with fools who back Donald Trump.

Quit lying. Vegans don't fish.

Quit assuming. I'm a beefatarian

That package of "beef" you bought at Whole Foods wasn't real beef, though...

You apparently believe you are impressing your members of this forum, but you are truly not impressive.

I don't believe there has ever been an accurate post in internet history that started with the word, "you apparently."

I am giving YOU a chance to make your own impression. Go ahead. Show them a thing or two, if you can. And I don't watch TV, so I don't follow in detail what script those sock puppets are reading from.

Three quotes please?
Time to show off the vast cosmos that is liberal intellect. Time to prove you are not just another drone in an unending line of liberal hypocrites who can't answer a simple question about substantiation, whose fullest demonstration of intelligence consists of spewing sophomoric hate speech (while hypocritically complaining about people who spew hate). Is there an intelligent liberal anywhere in creation?

I would consider addressing any of the numerous unrelated points you raised to create a diversion - but if you can't discuss one thing intelligently - your own claim - why should I assume you can discuss anything intelligently?

That you are not, apparently, impressive, is not meant to be precise, hence the word "apparently", particularly when
observing someone's unimpressiveness requires only a general level truthfulness, a general assessment,
in the sense that it's an opinion, an observation.

The fact that you must declare the obvious as if you were making an acute point when it's anything but,
is proof of said unimpressiveness.

There is no point of intelligent discussions with unimpressive persons, dullards who are therefore likely to be lacking intelligence.

Oh, I could be wrong, but my gut feeling is that I'm right. So, bother someone else who might guzzle your silly bait.

I use bait for fishing real fish, not toying with fools who back Donald Trump.

Quit lying. Vegans don't fish.

Quit assuming. I'm a beefatarian

That package of "beef" you bought at Whole Foods wasn't real beef, though...

When it's convenient he and you both, shame, belittle, trivial your opponent or their argument

So does your entire post, but not very well.

Ahh, but there's one big difference you missed, and it is this:
The targets of Ann's & Trump's vicious pens and/or vile mouths most certainly do not deserve it, but they, however, most certainly do.

I have always noticed the hypocrites credo - it's different when you do it than it is when those you hate do it. It's OK for the Trump haters to hate. It's OK for the Muzzies to hate.

Haters yelling hater? How could anyone fail to notice such blatant hypocrisy?

BTW, can you give three examples of Trump's poison pen on those who don't deserve it. Exact quotes, not fake news?

hypocrisy?

You mean like how they investigated Hillary 8 times for Benghazi, found nothing they could pin on her, bitched, moaned about it, but during Bush years there were 13 embassy attacks and 60 deaths and not one investigation or peep
out of Ann, Hannity, et al etc?

You mean like when, during the campaign, Trump and repubs exclaimed "Hillary would use the presidency for profit" and we have Trump, Kelly Ann, et al, hawking stuff, recieving money for hotel and promoting hotels all on the gov's dime and not one peep out of Ann, et al.

You mean like when, during the campaign, "Hillary would be corrupt" and on day one, Trump is violation of the emoluments clause and repubs & Ann well, not one peep out of them.

You mean like when, during the campaign, Trump and repubs bitched and moaned about how Hillary was going to do "pay for play" out the gazoo and what do we have now? Many of Trump's cabinent appointments are big time donors to his campaign and not one peep out of Repubs, Ann, et all.

And I could go on for about 30 more pages, my hypocrisy meter is redlining, but why bother?

When it's convenient he and you both, shame, belittle, trivial your opponent or their argument

So does your entire post, but not very well.

Ahh, but there's one big difference you missed, and it is this:
The targets of Ann's & Trump's vicious pens and/or vile mouths most certainly do not deserve it, but they, however, most certainly do.

I have always noticed the hypocrites credo - it's different when you do it than it is when those you hate do it. It's OK for the Trump haters to hate. It's OK for the Muzzies to hate.

Haters yelling hater? How could anyone fail to notice such blatant hypocrisy?

BTW, can you give three examples of Trump's poison pen on those who don't deserve it. Exact quotes, not fake news?

hypocrisy?

You mean like how they investigated Hillary 8 times for Benghazi, found nothing they could pin on her, bitched, moaned about it, but during Bush years there were 13 embassy attacks and 60 deaths and not one investigation or peep
out of Ann, Hannity, et al etc?

You mean like when, during the campaign, Trump and repubs exclaimed "Hillary would use the presidency for profit" and we have Trump, Kelly Ann, et al, hawking stuff, recieving money for hotel and promoting hotels all on the gov's dime and not one peep out of Ann, et al.

You mean like when, during the campaign, "Hillary would be corrupt" and on day one, Trump is violation of the emoluments clause and repubs & Ann well, not one peep out of them.

You mean like when, during the campaign, Trump and repubs bitched and moaned about how Hillary was going to do "pay for play" out the gazoo and what do we have now? Many of Trump's cabinent appointments are big time donors to his campaign and not one peep out of Repubs, Ann, et all.

And I could go on for about 30 more pages, my hypocrisy meter is redlining, but why bother?

Ahh, but there's one big difference you missed, and it is this:
The targets of Ann's & Trump's vicious pens and/or vile mouths most certainly do not deserve it, but they, however, most certainly do.

I have always noticed the hypocrites credo - it's different when you do it than it is when those you hate do it. It's OK for the Trump haters to hate. It's OK for the Muzzies to hate.

Haters yelling hater? How could anyone fail to notice such blatant hypocrisy?

BTW, can you give three examples of Trump's poison pen on those who don't deserve it. Exact quotes, not fake news?

hypocrisy?

You mean like how they investigated Hillary 8 times for Benghazi, found nothing they could pin on her, bitched, moaned about it, but during Bush years there were 13 embassy attacks and 60 deaths and not one investigation or peep
out of Ann, Hannity, et al etc?

You mean like when, during the campaign, Trump and repubs exclaimed "Hillary would use the presidency for profit" and we have Trump, Kelly Ann, et al, hawking stuff, recieving money for hotel and promoting hotels all on the gov's dime and not one peep out of Ann, et al.

You mean like when, during the campaign, "Hillary would be corrupt" and on day one, Trump is violation of the emoluments clause and repubs & Ann well, not one peep out of them.

You mean like when, during the campaign, Trump and repubs bitched and moaned about how Hillary was going to do "pay for play" out the gazoo and what do we have now? Many of Trump's cabinent appointments are big time donors to his campaign and not one peep out of Repubs, Ann, et all.

And I could go on for about 30 more pages, my hypocrisy meter is redlining, but why bother?

I don't believe there has ever been an accurate post in internet history that started with the word, "you apparently."

I am giving YOU a chance to make your own impression. Go ahead. Show them a thing or two, if you can. And I don't watch TV, so I don't follow in detail what script those sock puppets are reading from.

Three quotes please?
Time to show off the vast cosmos that is liberal intellect. Time to prove you are not just another drone in an unending line of liberal hypocrites who can't answer a simple question about substantiation, whose fullest demonstration of intelligence consists of spewing sophomoric hate speech (while hypocritically complaining about people who spew hate). Is there an intelligent liberal anywhere in creation?

I would consider addressing any of the numerous unrelated points you raised to create a diversion - but if you can't discuss one thing intelligently - your own claim - why should I assume you can discuss anything intelligently?

That you are not, apparently, impressive, is not meant to be precise, hence the word "apparently", particularly when
observing someone's unimpressiveness requires only a general level truthfulness, a general assessment,
in the sense that it's an opinion, an observation.

The fact that you must declare the obvious as if you were making an acute point when it's anything but,
is proof of said unimpressiveness.

There is no point of intelligent discussions with unimpressive persons, dullards who are therefore likely to be lacking intelligence.

Oh, I could be wrong, but my gut feeling is that I'm right. So, bother someone else who might guzzle your silly bait.

I use bait for fishing real fish, not toying with fools who back Donald Trump.

Quit lying. Vegans don't fish.

Quit assuming. I'm a beefatarian

That package of "beef" you bought at Whole Foods wasn't real beef, though...

I love it when Liberals proclaim something to be "unconstitutional". It almost never is.

Liberals are like Dr. Frankenstein building unconstitutional government. As long as they think it's going to be their creation, they want to build it more and more. But as a soon as a "fascist" is in office, who doesn't like their global village, suddenly they see a monster.

Trump MUST be doing somethin unconstitutional and impeachable. How about enforcing Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA regs, running the Dept of Education Something.

Everything said about President Trump's "Muslim ban" is a lie -- including that it's a Muslim ban.

The New York Times wore out its thesaurus denouncing the order: "cruelty ... injury ... suffering ... bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating ... breathtaking ... inflammatory ... callousness and indifference" -- and that's from a single editorial!

Amid the hysteria over this prudent pause in refugee admissions from seven countries whose principal export is dynamite vests, it has been indignantly claimed that it's illegal for our immigration policies to discriminate on the basis of religion.

This is often said by journalists who are only in America because of immigration policies that discriminated on the basis of religion.

For much of the last half-century, Soviet Jews were given nearly automatic entry to the U.S. as "refugees." Entering as a refugee confers all sorts of benefits unavailable to other immigrants, including loads of welfare programs, health insurance, job placement services, English language classes, and the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship after only five years.

Most important, though, Soviet Jews were not required to satisfy the United Nations definition of a "refugee," to wit: someone fleeing persecution based on race, religion or national origin. They just had to prove they were Jewish.

This may have been good policy, but let's not pretend the Jewish exception was not based on religion.

If a temporary pause on refugee admissions from seven majority-Muslim countries constitutes "targeting" Muslims, then our immigration policy "targeted" Christians for discrimination for about 30 years.

Never heard a peep from the ACLU about religious discrimination back then!

According to the considered opinion of the Cato Institute's David J. Bier, writing in The New York Times, Trump's executive order is "illegal" because the 1965 immigration act "banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin.”

In 1966, one year after the 1965 immigration act, immigrants from Cuba suddenly got special immigration privileges. In 1986, immigrants from Ireland did. People from Vietnam and Indochina got special immigration rights for 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War.

The 1965 law, quite obviously, did not prohibit discrimination based on national origin. (I was wondering why the Times would sully its pages with the legal opinion of a Grove City College B.A., like Bier! Any "expert" in a storm, I guess.)

In fact, ethnic discrimination is practically the hallmark of America's immigration policy -- in addition to our perverse obsession with admitting the entire Third World.

Commenting on these ethnic boondoggles back in 1996, Sen. Orrin Hatch said: "We have made a mockery" of refugee law, "because of politics and pressure." We let in one ethnic group out of compassion, then they form an ethnic power bloc to demand that all their fellow countrymen be let in, too.

As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, described "diversity" in Der Spiegel: "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

That's our immigration policy -- plus a healthy dose of Emma Lazarus' insane idea that all countries of the world should send their losers to us. (Thanks, Emma!)

Americans are weary of taking in these pricey Third World immigrants, who show their gratitude by periodically erupting in maniacal violence -- in, for example, San Bernardino, Orlando, New York City, Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, Bowling Green and St. Cloud.

The Muslim immigrants currently being showcased by the left are not likely to change any minds. The Times could produce only 11 cases of temporarily blocked immigrants that the newspaper would even dare mention. (Imagine what the others are like!)

For purposes of argument, I will accept the Times' glowing descriptions of these Muslim immigrants as brilliant scientists on the verge of curing cancer. (Two of the Times' 11 cases actually involved cancer researchers.)

Point one: If the Times thinks that brilliance is a desirable characteristic in an immigrant, why can't we demand that of all our immigrants?

To the contrary! Our immigration policy is more likely to turn away the brilliant scientist -- in order to make room for an Afghani goat herder, whose kid runs a coffee stand until deciding to bomb the New York City subway one day. (That was Najibullah Zazi, my featured "Immigrant of the Week," on May 1, 2012.)

Point two: I happened to notice that even the stellar Muslim immigrants dug up by the Times seem to bring a lot of elderly and sickly relatives with them. Guess who gets to support them?

House Speaker Paul Ryan's driving obsession (besides being the Koch brothers' lickspittle) is "entitlement reform," i.e., cutting benefits or raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare.

I have another idea. How about we stop bringing in immigrants who immediately access government programs, who bring in elderly parents who immediately access government programs, or who run vast criminal enterprises, stealing millions of dollars from government programs? (I illustrated the popularity of government scams with immigrants in Adios, America! by culling all the news stories about these crimes over a one-month period and listing the perps' names.)

Point three: Contrary to emotional blather about the horrors refugees are fleeing, a lot are just coming to visit their kids or to get free health care. One of the Times' baby seals -- an Iraqi with diabetes and "a respiratory ailment" -- was returning from performing his responsibilities as an elected official in Kirkuk.

That's not exactly fleeing the Holocaust.

While it's fantastic news that most Muslim refugees aren't terrorists, the downside is: They're not refugees, they're not brilliant, they don't have a constitutional right to come here and they're very, very expensive. Until politicians can give us more government services for less money, they need to stop bringing in the poor of the world on our dime.

COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

So very true. In fact, let us remember that successive usanian presidents were actually against the import of jews from Soviet Union. yet, juden in he usa had worked hard and long, well, their dollars did the actual working part, and little by little one congressman and senator after another were turned around and made obedient to the juden owners.

And now you have that "multiculturalism"crap, which is actually worse that the disaster in the EU - you usanians just don't know that.

Yet...

Races vote racially, believers vote religiously. And christians are brainwashed into meekness and "ït's okay" attitude, while juden and muslies are working hard on getting rid of you all. Every single last one of you.

Well, us. The white people. maurice samuels, zionist garbage well known, mde that perfectly clear in his "you, the gentiles" book. A writing that makes "Mein kampf"look like a book for children.

If nothing else, at least those with the brain, will figure out that this forced immigration is one of the main reasons why usanian defective and failed health care system is not working. Too many poor of the world to support quietly, under the table. For years.

Of course there's no money for domestic population. You are paying not only with your money but with your own health and wellbeing, so that these poor of the world can live in the usa without working for years to come, if ever.